Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

External validation of the ADA score for predicting thrombosis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients from the APEX Trial.

The ADA (Age-D-dimer-Albumin) score was developed to identify hospitalized patients at an increased risk for thrombosis in the coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) setting. The study aimed to validate the ADA score for predicting thrombosis in a non-COVID-19 medically ill population from the APEX trial. The APEX trial was a multinational, randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of betrixaban vs. enoxaparin among acutely ill hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. The study endpoints included the composite of arterial or venous thrombosis and its components. Metrics of model calibration and discrimination were computed for assessing the performance of the ADA score as compared to the IMPROVE score, a well-validated VTE risk assessment model. Among 7,119 medical inpatients, 209 (2.9%) had a thrombosis event up to 77 days of follow-up. The ADA score demonstrated good calibration for both arterial and venous thrombosis, whereas the IMPROVE score had adequate calibration for venous thrombosis (p > 0.05 from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test). For discriminating arterial and venous thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.620 [95% CI: 0.582 to 0.657] vs. 0.590 [95% CI: 0.556 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.030 [95% CI: -0.022 to 0.081]; p = 0.255). Similarly, for discriminating arterial thrombosis, there was no significant difference between the ADA vs. IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.582 [95% CI: 0.534 to 0.629] vs. 0.609 [95% CI: 0.564 to 0.653]; ∆ c statistic = -0.027 [95% CI: -0.091 to 0.036]; p = 0.397). For discriminating venous thrombosis, the ADA score was modestly superior to the IMPROVE score (c statistic = 0.664 [95% CI: 0.607 to 0.722] vs. 0.573 [95% CI: 0.521 to 0.624]; ∆ c statistic = 0.091 [95% CI: 0.011 to 0.172]; p = 0.026). The ADA score had a higher sensitivity (0.579 [95% CI: 0.512 to 0.646]; vs. 0.440 [95% CI: 0.373 to 0.507]) but lower specificity (0.625 [95% CI: 0.614 to 0.637] vs. 0.747 [95% CI: 0.737 to 0.758]) than the IMPROVE score for predicting thrombosis. Among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients enrolled in the APEX trial, the ADA score demonstrated good calibration but suboptimal discrimination for predicting thrombosis. The findings support the use of either the ADA or IMPROVE score for thrombosis risk assessment. The applicability of the ADA score to non-COVID-19 populations warrants further research.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01583218.

Risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic disorders following COVID-19 vaccination and positive test: a self-controlled case series analysis in Wales.

There is a need for better understanding of the risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic disorders following first, second and booster vaccination doses and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Self-controlled cases series analysis of 2.1 million linked patient records in Wales between 7th December 2020 and 31st December 2021. Outcomes were the first diagnosis of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in primary or secondary care datasets, exposure was defined as 0-28 days post-vaccination or a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. 36,136 individuals experienced either a thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during the study period. Relative to baseline, our observations show greater risk of outcomes in the periods post-first dose of BNT162b2 for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.47, 95%CI: 1.04-2.08) and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (IRR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.21-6.49) events; post-second dose of ChAdOx1 for arterial thrombosis (IRR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29); post-booster greater risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) (IRR-Moderna 3.62, 95%CI: 0.99-13.17) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.39, 95%CI: 1.04-1.87) and arterial thrombosis (IRR-Moderna 3.14, 95%CI: 1.14-8.64) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.34, 95%CI: 1.15-1.58). Similarly, post SARS-CoV-2 infection the risk was increased for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.92), VTE (IRR 5.63, 95%CI: 4.91, 6.4), arterial thrombosis (IRR 2.46, 95%CI: 2.22-2.71). We found that there was a measurable risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and infection.

The pharmacology of anticoagulant drug treatment options in COVID-19 patients: reviewing real-world evidence in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal anticoagulation strategy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention among COVID-19 patients, hospitalized or in the community setting, is still challenging and largely based on real-world evidence. AREAS COVERED: We analyzed real-world data regarding the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment, both parenteral and oral, for VTE prevention or atrial fibrillation (AF)/VTE treatment among COVID-19 patients. EXPERT OPINION: The efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses for VTE prevention correlates with COVID-19 disease status. LMWH prophylactic dose may be useful in COVID-19 patients at the early stage of the disease. LMWH intermediate or therapeutic dose is recommended in COVID-19 patients with an advanced stage of the disease. COVID-19 patients on VKA therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) and VTE should switch to NOACs in the community setting or LMWH in the hospital setting. No definitive data on de-novo starting of NOACs or VKA therapy for VTE prevention in COVID-19 outpatients are available. In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalization due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with NOACs may be considered.

Risk of serious adverse events after the BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines in Malaysia: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines is challenging for safety surveillance, especially on adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that were not identified during the pre-licensure studies. This study evaluated the risk of hospitalisations for predefined diagnoses among the vaccinated population in Malaysia. METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period. RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21). CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.

Statins and Risk of Thrombosis in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Coagulation abnormalities are one of the most important complications of severe COVID-19, which might lead to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Hypercoagulability with hyperfibrinogenemia causes large vessel thrombosis and major thromboembolic sequelae. Statins are potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection due to their pleiotropic effect. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of statins in reducing the risk of thrombosis among hospitalized critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were categorized based on their usage of statins throughout their ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score. The primary endpoint was the odds of all cases of thrombosis; other outcomes were considered secondary. RESULTS: A total of 1039 patients were eligible; following propensity score matching, 396 patients were included (1:1 ratio). The odds of all thrombosis cases and VTE events did not differ significantly between the two groups (OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.43, 1.66), P = 0.62 and OR 1.13 (95% CI 0.43, 2.98), P = 0.81, respectively. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients who received statin therapy had lower 30-day (HR 0.72 (95 % CI 0.54, 0.97), P = 0.03) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.51, 0.89), P = 0.007). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant between the two groups except for D-dimer levels (peak) during ICU stay. CONCLUSION: The use of statin therapy during ICU stay was not associated with thrombosis reduction in critically ill patients with COVID-19; however, it has been associated with survival benefits.

Thrombotic and bleeding events, mortality, and anticoagulant use among 546,656 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States: a retrospective cohort study.

This study describes demographics, thrombotic and bleeding events, mortality, and anticoagulant use among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States. Premier Healthcare Database data were analyzed to identify inpatients with a discharge diagnosis for COVID-19 (ICD-10-CM code: U07.1) from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021, and matched historical controls without COVID-19 (inpatients discharged between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019). Thrombotic [including venous thromboembolism (VTE)] and bleeding events were based on ICD-10-CM discharge diagnosis codes. Of the 546,656 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20.1% were admitted to the ICU, 62.8% were aged ≥ 60 years, 51.5% were male, and 31.0% were non-white. Any thrombotic event was diagnosed in 10.0% of hospitalized and 20.8% of ICU patients with COVID-19 versus (vs) 11.5% and 24.4% for historical controls, respectively. More VTE events were observed in hospitalized and ICU patients with COVID-19 than historical controls (hospitalized: 4.4% vs 2.7%, respectively; ICU: 8.3% vs 5.2%, respectively; both P < 0.0001). Bleeding events were diagnosed in 10.2% of hospitalized and 21.8% of ICU patients with COVID-19 vs 16.0% and 33.2% for historical controls, respectively. Mortality among hospitalized (12.4%) and ICU (38.5%) patients with COVID-19 was higher vs historical controls (2.4%, P < 0.0001 and 9.4%, P < 0.0001, respectively) and higher in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had thrombotic events (29.4%) vs those without thrombotic events (10.8%, P < 0.0001). VTE and mortality were higher in hospitalized and ICU patients with COVID-19 vs historical controls. The presence of thrombotic events was associated with worse outcomes.

Risks of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19: nationwide self-controlled cases series and matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19. DESIGN: Self-controlled case series and matched cohort study. SETTING: National registries in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: 1 057 174 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021 in Sweden, matched on age, sex, and county of residence to 4 076 342 control participants. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Self-controlled case series and conditional Poisson regression were used to determine the incidence rate ratio and risk ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for a first deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or bleeding event. In the self-controlled case series, the incidence rate ratios for first time outcomes after covid-19 were determined using set time intervals and the spline model. The risk ratios for first time and all events were determined during days 1-30 after covid-19 or index date using the matched cohort study, and adjusting for potential confounders (comorbidities, cancer, surgery, long term anticoagulation treatment, previous venous thromboembolism, or previous bleeding event). RESULTS: Compared with the control period, incidence rate ratios were significantly increased 70 days after covid-19 for deep vein thrombosis, 110 days for pulmonary embolism, and 60 days for bleeding. In particular, incidence rate ratios for a first pulmonary embolism were 36.17 (95% confidence interval 31.55 to 41.47) during the first week after covid-19 and 46.40 (40.61 to 53.02) during the second week. Incidence rate ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 5.90 (5.12 to 6.80) for deep vein thrombosis, 31.59 (27.99 to 35.63) for pulmonary embolism, and 2.48 (2.30 to 2.68) for bleeding. Similarly, the risk ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 4.98 (4.96 to 5.01) for deep vein thrombosis, 33.05 (32.8 to 33.3) for pulmonary embolism, and 1.88 (1.71 to 2.07) for bleeding, after adjusting for the effect of potential confounders. The rate ratios were highest in patients with critical covid-19 and highest during the first pandemic wave in Sweden compared with the second and third waves. In the same period, the absolute risk among patients with covid-19 was 0.039% (401 events) for deep vein thrombosis, 0.17% (1761 events) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.101% (1002 events) for bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that covid-19 is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. These results could impact recommendations on diagnostic and prophylactic strategies against venous thromboembolism after covid-19.

In high-risk inpatients with COVID-19, therapeutic- vs. standard-dose heparin reduced thromboembolism or death at 30 d.

SOURCE CITATION: Spyropoulos AC, Goldin M, Giannis D, et al. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose heparin vs standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the HEP-COVID randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1612-20. 34617959.

Effects of dalteparin on anti-Xa activities cannot be predicted in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk of thromboembolic events despite routine-dosed low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis. However, in recent randomized trials increased-intensity thromboprophylaxis seemed futile and possibly even harmful. In this explorative pharmacokinetic (PK) study we measured anti-Xa activities on frequent timepoints in 15 critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving dalteparin and performed PK analysis by nonlinear mixed-effect modelling. A linear one-compartment model with first-order kinetics provided a good fit. However, wide interindividual variation in dalteparin absorption (variance 78%) and clearance (variance 34%) was observed, unexplained by routine clinical covariates. Using the final PK model for Monte Carlo simulations, we predicted increased-intensity dalteparin to result in anti-Xa activities well over prophylactic targets (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) in the majority of patients. Therapeutic-intensity dalteparin results in supratherapeutic anti-Xa levels (target 0.6-1.0 IU/mL) in 19% of patients and subtherapeutic levels in 22%. Therefore, anti-Xa measurements should guide high-intensity dalteparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in females after vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019.

Since December 2020, four vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) have been developed, and three have been approved for immediate use in the United States. Two are mRNA vaccines, and one uses a viral vector mechanism. Thrombotic complications have been reported after vaccine administration, which were primarily cerebral sinus thromboses after administration of the viral vector vaccines. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to report venous thrombotic complications within days of administration of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine. We present a series of three women who developed venous thromboembolism after RNA-1273 vaccination at a single healthcare system.

Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia on adequate oral anticoagulation.

Thrombotic complications are common in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia with important consequences on the diagnostic and therapeutic management. We report a consecutive series of five patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy who presented to our hospital for severe COVID-19 pneumonia associated with segmental acute pulmonary embolism despite adherence to therapy and with an adequate anticoagulant range at the time of the event. Four patients were receiving a direct oral anticoagulant (two with edoxaban, one with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban) and one patient a vitamin K antagonist. No significant thrombotic risk factors, active cancer, or detectable venous thromboembolism were present. In all cases, elevated d-dimer and fibrinogen levels with a parallel rise in markers of inflammation were documented. The combination of these findings seems to support the hypothesis that considers the local vascular damage determined by severe viral infection as the main trigger of thrombi detected in the lungs, rather than emboli from peripheral veins.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.

Importance: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been reported after vaccination with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson). Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with and without TTS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from an international registry of consecutive patients with CVST within 28 days of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination included between March 29 and June 18, 2021, from 81 hospitals in 19 countries. For reference, data from patients with CVST between 2015 and 2018 were derived from an existing international registry. Clinical characteristics and mortality rate were described for adults with (1) CVST in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, (2) CVST after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination not fulling criteria for TTS, and (3) CVST unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Exposures: Patients were classified as having TTS if they had new-onset thrombocytopenia without recent exposure to heparin, in accordance with the Brighton Collaboration interim criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical characteristics and mortality rate. Results: Of 116 patients with postvaccination CVST, 78 (67.2%) had TTS, of whom 76 had been vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCov-19; 38 (32.8%) had no indication of TTS. The control group included 207 patients with CVST before the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 63 of 78 (81%), 30 of 38 (79%), and 145 of 207 (70.0%) patients, respectively, were female, and the mean (SD) age was 45 (14), 55 (20), and 42 (16) years, respectively. Concomitant thromboembolism occurred in 25 of 70 patients (36%) in the TTS group, 2 of 35 (6%) in the no TTS group, and 10 of 206 (4.9%) in the control group, and in-hospital mortality rates were 47% (36 of 76; 95% CI, 37-58), 5% (2 of 37; 95% CI, 1-18), and 3.9% (8 of 207; 95% CI, 2.0-7.4), respectively. The mortality rate was 61% (14 of 23) among patients in the TTS group diagnosed before the condition garnered attention in the scientific community and 42% (22 of 53) among patients diagnosed later. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with CVST, a distinct clinical profile and high mortality rate was observed in patients meeting criteria for TTS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.